Their argument isn't that they should be able to use the data freely because it's broadcast over the public airwaves. The relevance of the public airwaves is that there is an existing compromise between broadcasters and the public such that the public is entitled to watch certain content for free over the air, in return for broadcasters being allowed to use the public airwaves. What Aereo is arguing is that their service falls within this existing compromise, because it's no different than attaching a rabbit-ear to your TV with a really long cable.
In other words, it's okay not just because the data is on the public airwaves, but because the data is on the public airwaves AND broadcasters have agreed to let the public use that data under certain conditions. This isn't quite the legal posture of the dispute, but it's the public policy essence of it.
They're talking about the stations broadcast in the part of the spectrum specifically set aside for public, free, over-the-air watching of the stations.
You know, what your TV tunes in to if you just have an antenna.
Aereo sells a service where they operate an antenna on your behalf, and essentially run a long cable to your house from one of their locations, where the antenna is located.
Your comment shows that you didn't really look in to the argument being presented before commenting - because it instantly latches on to an untrue hypothetical as to why you shouldn't agree.
They do have a legal argument. They have one antenna for each user, so they claim they are just renting you the antenna, basically. Just as if you had rented the antenna and laid a long cable to their facility, then just used internet to get to the antenna instead of a cable. There are legal protections for encrypted stuff, heck the DMCA prevents bypassing just a copyright flag nowadays when backing up DVDs. But these are public TV channels anyone can watch with an antenna and the company seems to have legally constructed the same situation for its users.
> If it is the latter and that argument can be used, then would it be legal to capture cellphone communication and any wireless data?
Actually, yes. Except that Congress has specifically made that action illegal if not done under a specific list of exceptions (e.g. law enforcement with a warrant, intelligence agencies collecting foreign intelligence under an authorization from someone at their agency with that authority, etc.)
Are they talking about the data being broadcasted in public spectrum? Or that the wave travel through public air and atmosphere?
If it is the latter and that argument can be used, then would it be legal to capture cellphone communication and any wireless data?
I just don't think one should blindly accept unsound argument even if it would result in the change one wants.